M/S.KALLETTUMKARA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/34353/2018HC KeralaKLHC01078843201823 October 2018Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, while not inclined to interfere with the appellate authority's discussion in Ext.P4, acknowledged the petitioner's plea for more time to comply with the direction. The Court found that it would meet the ends of justice to grant the petitioner an extension. The operative direction was that the appellate authority would entertain the petitioner's appeal and enforce the stay if the petitioner pays 30% of the disputed tax within two weeks from the date of the order. The Court did not decide on the merits of the conditional order itself, focusing instead on granting time for compliance.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s. Kallettumkara Service Co-operative Bank Limited, filed a writ petition challenging a conditional order (Ext.P4) passed by the appellate authority. This order imposed a condition that the petitioner must pay 30% of the disputed tax to obtain a stay on further proceedings. The petitioner had already suffered adverse orders in assessment proceedings and had filed an appeal against them. The petitioner argued that the order imposing the condition was problematic and sought an enlargement of time for compliance, stating that a similar issue had been settled in their favour at the Tribunal level in another matter. The order imposing the condition was issued in May 2017, and the petitioner had approached the Principal Commissioner under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, which was rejected on 09.10.2018.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the conditional order (Ext.P4) imposing payment of 30% of the disputed tax for a stay is legally sustainable? The petitioner argued that the condition imposed by the appellate authority was assailable and sought an enlargement of time for compliance. They also contended that the issue had been settled in their favour at the Tribunal level in a separate matter. The revenue, through its Standing Counsel, advanced submissions on the merits of the case. However, the Court explicitly stated it was not inclined to go into the merits of the order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 220(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU TUESDAY ,THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 1ST KARTHIKA, 1940 WP(C).No. 34353 of 2018 PETITIONER/S: M/S.KALLETTUMKARA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, KALLETTUMKARA, THRISSUR-680683, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SMT. E.P. DAISY. BY ADVS. SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SMT. ARYA ANIL SMT. NILOOFAR O. NIZAM SRI.R.SREEJITH RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(2), THRISSUR-680001 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) THRISSUR 680 001 3 THE PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THRISSUR 680 001 OTHER PRESENT: SC SRI. JOSE JOSEPH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.10.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -2- W.P.(C). No. 34353 of 2018

JUDGMENT The petitioner, after suffering adverse orders in assessment proceedings, filed an appeal. In the stay petition, the appellate authority, through Ext.P4 order, imposed a condition: the petitioner should pay 30% of the disputed tax to have the further proceedings stayed. Assailing this condition, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

2.

Both the petitioner's counsel and the Standing Counsel for the Department have advanced submissions extensively on the merits. Nevertheless, this Court is not inclined to go into the merits.

3.

When this Court has held that the order cannot be faulted, the petitioner's counsel has pleaded foe enlargement of time. In this context, he has stressed that the issue has been settled at the Tribunal level in the petitioner's favour, in some other matter.

4.

Though this Court is not inclined to interfere with the discussion exercised by the appellate authority in Ext.P4, it only meets the ends of justice if the petitioner is given more time to comply with the direction.

-3- W.P.(C). No. 34353 of 2018

5.

Faced with problem that the order was issued in May 2017, the petitioner's counsel submits that against the conditional order the petitioner approached the Principal Commissioner under 220(6) of the Income Tax Act. As the order of rejection came to be passed very recently, that is on 09.10.2018, the petitioner wanted to have the time originally granted extended. Under these circumstances, the appellate authority will entertain the petitioner's appeal and enforce the stay if the petitioner pays 30% as demanded earlier, in two weeks from today. DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE das

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 17-3-2016 FOR THE A.Y 2008-09 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT -4- W.P.(C). No. 34353 of 2018 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23-05- 2017 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 9-10-2018 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 10-10- 2018 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT

More judgments on Section 220(6)

All 54 judgments and leading authorities on Section 220(6) →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →